2ac blocks

7/29/2019 2AC Blocks

1/153

NEENAH DEBATE Neenah CK 2AC - StandardNATHAN CHO Last Updated: 12/13/2012

1

Neenah 2AC Blocks

Contents

Neenah 2AC Blocks ...................................................................................................... 1

# # On Case # # ......................................................................................................... 5

- - Extensions - - ........................................................................................................ 6

Economy .................................................................................................................. 7

Warming .................................................................................................................. 9

Solvency ................................................................................................................. 10

- - New Case Args - - ................................................................................................ 12

Warming Impact Calc .............................................................................................. 13

Economy Impact Calc .............................................................................................. 15

Nuke War ............................................................................................................ 16

Econ Turns Environment ...................................................................................... 17

- - Case Blocks - - ..................................................................................................... 18

AT Inherency ........................................................................................................ 19

AT Inherency (Cities) ............................................................................................ 20AT Construction Turn ........................................................................................... 21

AT Ice Age Turn .................................................................................................... 23

ATNo Intl Warming Solvency .............................................................................. 24

AT Adaption Solves Warming ............................................................................... 25

AT Dirty Grid ........................................................................................................ 26

AT Cold worse than Heat...................................................................................... 27

ATCars dont contribute much to warming .......................................................... 28AT 31000 scientists disagree with warming .......................................................... 29

AT Delays ............................................................................................................. 31

AT Econ Improving ............................................................................................... 32

AT Property Values .............................................................................................. 33


2/153


2

AT Barnet: Econ /=/ War ...................................................................................... 34

AT Inflation .......................................................................................................... 35

AT Econ War Empirics .......................................................................................... 36

AT Dedev - CO2 .................................................................................................... 38AT Ridership ........................................................................................................ 39

AT Geography ...................................................................................................... 40

# # Theory # # ......................................................................................................... 41

Conditionality Bad ............................................................................................... 42

Dispositionality Bad ............................................................................................. 43

Multiple Perms Good .......................................................................................... 44

Perm Advocacy Good .......................................................................................... 45

PICs Bad .............................................................................................................. 46

Consult Bad ......................................................................................................... 47

Multiactor Fiat Bad .............................................................................................. 48

International Fiat Bad .......................................................................................... 49

Utopian Fiat Bad .................................................................................................. 50

Vagueness Bad .................................................................................................... 51

Must have solvency advocate .............................................................................. 52

Textual Competition Best .................................................................................... 53Topical Competition Bad ..................................................................................... 54

Noninherent Counterplans Bad ........................................................................... 55

Nontopical CPs Bad ............................................................................................ 56

Topical CPs Bad .................................................................................................. 57

Neg Fiat Bad ........................................................................................................ 58

# # Off case # # ....................................................................................................... 59

T - Resolved ............................................................................................................ 60T - Should ............................................................................................................... 61

Words & Phrases 6 .............................................................................................. 61

T - Substantially ...................................................................................................... 62

Words and Phrases 2 ........................................................................................... 62


3/153


3

T - Increase ............................................................................................................. 63

T - Increase = Preexistence ...................................................................................... 64

T - TI ....................................................................................................................... 65

T - Investment ........................................................................................................ 66T - United States ..................................................................................................... 67

AT: ASPEC ............................................................................................................... 68

AT: SPECs ................................................................................................................ 69

States CP - 3:30 ....................................................................................................... 70

2AC States CP [1/7] ............................................................................................. 71

2AC States CP [2/7] ............................................................................................. 73

2AC States CP [3/7] ............................................................................................. 74

2AC States CP [4/7] ............................................................................................. 75

2AC States CP [5/7] ............................................................................................. 76

2AC States CP [6/7] ............................................................................................. 77

2AC States CP [7/7] ............................................................................................. 79

1AR States CP [1/3] ............................................................................................. 80

1AR States CP [2/3] ............................................................................................. 81

1AR States CP [3/3] ............................................................................................. 82

User Fees CP ........................................................................................................... 832AC ..................................................................................................................... 84

XO CP ..................................................................................................................... 88

2AC ..................................................................................................................... 89

China CP ................................................................................................................. 93

2AC ..................................................................................................................... 94

Sea Basing CP ....................................................................................................... 102

Carbon Tax CP ...................................................................................................... 104OTEC CP ................................................................................................................ 105

H1B CP.................................................................................................................. 106

EB VISAS CP .......................................................................................................... 108

Spending DA ......................................................................................................... 110


4/153


4

2AC Spending DA [1/4] ...................................................................................... 111

2AC Spending DA [2/4] ...................................................................................... 112

2AC Spending DA [3/4] ...................................................................................... 113

2AC Spending DA [4/4] ...................................................................................... 114Politics Obama Good DA .................................................................................... 115

2AC P-OG DA ..................................................................................................... 116

1AR P-OG DA Extensions ................................................................................... 122

AT Galston 10 ................................................................................................. 123

Politics Fiscal Cliff DA ......................................................................................... 124

Politics Iran Diplo DA ......................................................................................... 126

Blackouts DA ........................................................................................................ 128

Wage Inflation DA ................................................................................................ 131

LUST DA ................................................................................................................ 133

Freight DA ............................................................................................................ 135

Federalism DA ...................................................................................................... 136

Urban Sprawl DA .................................................................................................. 137

2AC ................................................................................................................... 138

1AR ................................................................................................................... 139

Auto Trade Off DA ................................................................................................ 140Airline Trade Off DA ............................................................................................. 141

Oil DA ................................................................................................................... 142

K Answers............................................................................................................. 144

Security K ............................................................................................................. 152


5/153


5

# # On Case # #


6/153


6

- - Extensions - -


7/153


7

Economy

Extend NRDC 11 the poor quality of our infrastructure will kill the economy nearlya million jobs will be lost, $3.1 trillion decline in GDP, businesses will be spendingnearly half a trillion on transportation costs, and families will see their incomes dropby $7000

First internal link is short-term stimulus

Extend Brumley 12businesses have money, but arent spending it US corporationshold over 2.1 trillion dollars in cash that can be easily spent, this is a record high.14.2% of all dollars are sitting on the sidelines.

Extend Thoma 12 this is because of a lack of demand for products surveys ofcorporate leaders show that this is the single largest and most cited reason for a lackof business investment.

Extend Hirsch 10 public spending gets demand rolling again people will be hired tobuild high-speed rail this gives them money which they then spend on goods andbusinesses will invest to compensate for the increase in consumer demand forproducts. This is uniquely key to getting out of the current slump 15 million people

are in long-term unemployment and there are excesses of production capacity. This isempirically proven with FDRs Civil Works Administration they created more than 8million jobs investing in infrastructure.

Extend TI is a uniquely powerful stimulus Han 12 it has the highest multiplier effect;further, public investment is key to private sector productivity, growth of TI by 1%increases private GDP by .6%

Extend Krugman 10 Deficits are necessary for growth bond purchasing is highwhich means short term deficits can be offset, the long-term is the real worry and that

will be offset by 50% if econ growth returns to pre-recession levels; deficit hype ismarginalizing opposition and endorses the same justification for the Iraq war;unwarranted allegations reported as if fact. This is fear mongering that results inmillions of unemployed people.

And this is empirically proven by the Recovery Act


8/153


8

Bernstein 11 It created 3 million jobs and raised GDP by 3.4%

Stevenson AND Wolfers 12Theres a strong economic consensus aboutstimulus spending 92% of leading economists agree that the stimulus created

jobs and all surveyed economists defend the bailouts when weighted byconfidence, this goes even stronger.

Extend Bivens and Edwards 10 Econ growth solves long-term deficits raises taxrevenue and solves the need for expansionary fiscal policy like unemploymentcompensation

Next internal link is long-term growth

Extend Todorovich et al. 11 HSR solves the economy via 6 internal links Productivity

from time savings, expanded job market, tourism, direct construction, real estate,agglomeration

Extend Ahlfeldt 12 HSR Spurring economic growth is empirically proven onaverage, towns connected to lines have their GDP rise by at least 3% compared to theaverage of towns not connected.

Extend Royal 10 Multiple warrants for econ decline leading to conflict; redistributionof power leads to miscalc, the solution of warring to solve resource shortagesincreases as perception of decline persists due to a failure of trade, internal conflicts,terrorism, popular incentivization of war by governments, low US presidentialapproval is linked with an increase in force


9/153


9

Warming

Extend Dutzik et al. 10HSR dramatically reduces congestion trades offwith cars + planes, Center for Clean Air estimates that would reduce cartravel by 29 million trips, hurts econ 4.16 billion hours lost

Extend Barth And Boriboonsomsin 10 Which reduces US carbonemissions by 20% - Empirically verified with California

Extend Deibel 7 Unanimous Scientific consensus exists on warming, itsreal and caused by carbon emissions every peer reviewed article onclimate change says warming is anthropogenic and occurring


10/153


10

Solvency

Extend Dutzik et al 10stable federal funding key to solvency disrupts long-termcapital planning and investor confidence key to industrial benefits; further,investment in rail now prevents even more spending on roads + airports later

Extend HSR will have strong ridershipDutzik et al. 10 Surveys 82% prefer it when they use itHurst 12 Amtrak carried 30.2 million passengers in 2011, most since 1971eighth time in nine years that Amtrak has set a ridership record proves atrendMeggison 12 and Transit stats prove public transit highest level since 1957

Extend Pollack 12 now is the key time to invest in high speed rail first, interestrates are negative, this means the private sector is subsidizing infrastructureinvestment, second, construction companies are desperate for work and are makingextraordinarily low bids to compete for businessthis means were cheap, and third spending money on infrastructure now saves ten times as much in repairs later

Extend the plan will be paid for usingClubb 10 Stimulus, Bailout funds More than $80 billion in uncommittedstimulus money to renewable energy

DOT 12 and the military $500 billion from military drawdowns over six years

Extend Moore 11 HSR is profitable nearly all make operational profits which isdistinct from paying off the initial investmentwhich cant be done in a year

Ignore their authorsDeweese 10 CATO, Heritage, and Reason are trying to blend corporate andstate power thats empirically provenThey advocate PPPs which Mussolini

used to concentrate corporate powerBoyles 5 - These think tanks are academically indefensible They lack peerreview, are biased, and reverse the scientific methodSnookered 12 They fabricate author credentials and are corrupted by oilinterests They hire people with no formal education and use the think tank asa credibility cover. They are funded by the kochs


11/153


11

NYT 9Specifically, OToole is not educated, he falsifies data, and makesassumptionsan author he cited disputed OTooles claims andsaid OToolemakes ridership assumptions.Greenpeace 10 Also the Mercatus Center is heavily tied to oil interests they

received 10 million dollars from the Koch foundation. Charles Koch is on theboard of directors and they were founded by a Koch Industries executive.Tevelow 5These indicts dont apply to liberal organizations liberalorganizations dont have the same ideological commitment and narrative as

conservative ones

Dont let them make new case arguments in the 2NC1. Reciprocity Affcant make new arguments following the 2NC2. Time and Strat Skew Entire aff strategy is predicated off the 2AC, new case

arguments in the 2NC bypasses the 2AC and puts enormous pressure on the

1ARA dropped argument is a dropped argument


12/153


12

- - New Case Args - -


13/153


13

Warming Impact Calc

Magnitude

Global warming is comparatively the worst impactGenovese 7The Impacts Jane Genovese; owner, coordinator and presenter of Learning Fundamentals, an organisation that gives students the edge over their studies. Jane gives workshops on memory techniques and general study strategies, exam preparation, managing stress and how to focusin the age of distraction. She graduated from university in 2009 with a Bachelor of Laws and Bachelor of Psychology with first class honour s and received a Vice Chancellors Award for Academic Excellence. In 2010, she commenced her PhD in the area of education and psychology atMurdoch University; 2007 http://live-the-solution.com/wp-content/uploads/chapter2b-impacts.pdfOften when people think of catastrophe what automatically jumps to mind are events that occur in an instant such as earthquakes, tsunamis and landslides. Many people fail to consider categorising global warming as a catastrophe, since the consequences of it take many

years to manifest. When the full impact of what has already happened and what is predicted to happen to the earth is properly considered, the reality hits home that global warming will be the mother of allcataclysmic events in history. James Lovelock (creator of the Gaia theory) states The catastrophe threatened by global heating is far

worse than any war, famine, or plague in living memory; worse even than global nuclear war . Much of the lush and comfortable Earth we now enjoy isabout to become a hot and barren desert. Leading scientist at NASA, Dr James Hansen, states the world has warmed by approximately 0.8 d egrees over the past century, which is much larger than any of the climate changes experienced during the past 10,000 years. This may

seem like a small increase in temperature given the huge variations in temperature we experience daily, but the effect of this overall global warming has been devastating: heat waves, deep oceans warming,the Arctic ice cap melting (three times faster than it had been predicted), sea levels rising (twice as rapidly as had been predicted), species extinctions (three speciesdisappear every hour), increased earthquakes and stronger and longer storm and flood events have occurred (just to name a fewchanges). One only needs to take a look at the weather conditions around the globe over the past few years to see that the worlds climate is changing rapidly and becoming more extreme. According to Munich Re (an insurance company) extremeweather events have quintupled since 1950. Of the 12 warmest years on record, 11 occurredbetween 1995 and 2006. 2005 was the hottest year in over a century. Along with these hot temperatures, Australia has consequently experienced some if itsdriest months and severest drought. In 2007, Northern England experienced a whole months worth of rain in just a few hours in many places, Southwest Pakistan was hit by monsoon floods affecting 800,000 and Indonesia experienced intense storms which left more than340,000 homeless. Ukraine experienced their worst drought in a century, which cut crop yields by 60% and resulted in a rapid increase in food prices. Tokyo (the capital of Japan) had never gone so late without snow in the winter season according to the Japan Meteorological

Agency. This is just a snapshot of what is going on around the world (Visit www.heatisonline.org/weather.cfm for an extensive list). The Facts The IPCC states that the global temperature will rise by 1.1C to 6.4C overthe next 100 years (Some scientists such as Nobel Laureate, Paul Crutzen, are now saying that these figures are too low and could rise anywhere between 7C and 10C). Scientists predict that with a onedegree increase in temperature Mount Kilimanjaro will lose all its ice, rare species will be wiped out in the Queensland (Australia), coral reefs such as theGreat Barrier Reefwill be largely destroyed and Island nations will submerge under the rising sea levels. Feeling a littlebored or sleepy by reading this? Youre not alone. This information is heavy and can be hard to take in. Hang in there. With a two degree increase Greenland will tip intoirreversible melt (accelerating sea-level rise and threatening coastal cities around the world), polar bears and

other

species that require a stable ice platform for survival will become extinct in the Arctic andshrinking snowfields will threaten Californian water supplies. George Monbiot (columnist for the Guardian and Visiting Professor at the School of the Built Environment at Oxford BrookesUniversity) in his book Heat: How to stop the planet burning states Two degrees is the point beyond which certain major ecosystems begincollapsing. Having, until then, absorbed carbon dioxide, they begin to release it. Beyond thispoint.climate change is out of our hands: it will accelerate without our help . A three degree increase will result in Perth (my hometown), Sydney and other parts of Australia experiencing water shortages, the world will experience a net food deficit, the Amazonian ecosystem will collapse and glacial retreat in the Himalayas means the Indus River will run dry and millions of environmental refugees will fleePakistan. Feeling depressed? If the answer is yes then youve probably read enough to get an idea of how serious the impact of just a one or two degree increase in global temperature will be. If you realise that we need to do whatever we can to not go beyond two degrees inglobal temperature, you can skip to the next chapter. For those of you who need further convincing (or if you have a strong stomach) you can read on to find out what is predicted to happen with a four, five and six degree increase in global temperature. A four degree increase intemperature will lead to a third of Bangladesh being threatened by rising seas and millions will become climate refugees, all glaciers will disappear in the Alps, further reducing water supplies in central Europe. Permafrost melt in Siberia will release billions of tonnes ofgreenhouse gases thereby exacerbating global warming. A five degree increase means the earth will become hotter than any other time in 55 million years and methane hydrate will be released from underneath oceans resulting in tsunamis in coastal regions. In total 180 days

of the year will be above 35C in South Australia and the Northern Territory. By this stage most of the world will be uninhabitable. Finally, a six degree increase will lead to the massextinction of species (90 100% loss of core habitat for most Australian vertebrates). 251 million years ago (the end-Permian mass extinction) there was a temperature increase between 6C 8C degrees. This led tocoral reefs dying and 90% of the earths species being wiped out. This warming may have been due to a series of volcanic eruptions releasing CO2 and SO2.George Monbiot states this period gives us an indication of the possible impact this rise in temperature could

cause. If six degrees of warming does occur then it is likely human beings will become extinct too. For someshort sighted people none of the above environmental impacts really matter. Its all about the economy. According to the St ern review (a 700 page report on the economics of climate change compiled by British Economist Sir Nicholas Stern) climatechange will affect the global economy and could end up costing $7 trillion. The main conclusion of this report was that if we act now todramatically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst effects of climate change then 1% of global GDP (measure of economic activity) per annum is required to be invested. Failure to act could result inglobal GDP being 20% lower than it otherwise might be. Clearly the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh theeconomic costs of not taking action. The science is in and it is painfully clear, global warming is realand it is happening faster than ever predicted. We have a moment to take action. To avoid some ofthe worst impacts we need to act now to dramatically cut our greenhouse gas emissions.


14/153


14

Timeframe

Abrupt climate change is near certain empirically proven

Preuss 8IMPACTS: On the Threshold of Abrupt Climate Changes Paul Preuss; Lawren ce Berkeley National Laboratory; SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 http://newscenter.lbl.gov/feature-stories/2008/09/17/impacts-on-the-threshold-of-abrupt-climate-changes/Sparked by the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize that was shared by Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the reality of global warming finally got through to the majority of the worlds population. Most people think ofclimate change as something that occurs only gradually, however, with average temperature changing two or three degrees Celsius over a century or more; this is the rate at whichforcing mechanisms operate, such as the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels or widespread changes in land use. But climate change has occurred with

frightening rapidity in the past and will almost certainly do so again . Perhaps the most famous

example is the reverse hiccup in a warming trend that began 15,000 years ago and eventually ended the last ice age. Roughly 2,000 years after it started, the warming trend suddenly reversed, and temperatures fell back to near-glacial conditions; Earth stayed cold forover a thousand years, a period called the Younger Dryas (named for an alpine wildflower). Then warming resumed so abruptly that globaltemperatures shot up 10 C in just 10 years. Because civilizations hadnt yet emerged, complex human

societies escaped this particular roller-coaster ride. Nevertheless, some form of abrupt climate change is highly likely

in the future, with wide-ranging economic and social effects.

Cutting emissions solvesUCS 4Abrupt Climate Change Union of Concerned Scientists July 9, 2004 http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/abrupt-climate-change.html

Can we avoid abrupt climate change? Yes. While abrupt climate change is not a certainty, human-caused climate change makes

abrupt events more likely .What is certain is that human-caused climate change is already under way, and is expected to continue over the next century as a result of our emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases to theatmosphere. Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are higher today than they have been for more than 400,000 years. Earth's surface temperature has increased measurably over the past 100 years, and 10 of the warmest years on record have occurred since 1990. This warming has

caused changes in rainfallsome regions have become wetter while others have become drier and droughts and severe rainfall events have become more common. By making choices now to reduce our

emissions of heat-trapping gases, we can slow the rate of global warming and reduce the likelihood

of unexpected climate changes.

Must act before 2020

Calvin 2008[William H. (Professor emeritus at the University of Washington in Seattle and the author of 14 books). Global Fever. Pg 239. //Jamie]

Time has become so short that we must turn around the annual emissions growth before 2020 to

avoid saddling todays students with the world of refugees and genocides that results if were too slow. That means not waiting for a better deal on somepost Kyoto treaty. It means immediately scaling up technolog ies that we know will work, not waiting forsomething better that could take decades to debug.


15/153


15

Economy Impact Calc


16/153


16

Nuke War

Economic growth is the key to preventing nuclear warMorgan 11The American Economy and Americas Global Power Iwan Morgan; professor of US Studies and director of the American Presidency Centre at the UCL-Institute of the Americas, previously Professor of US Studies at the Institute for the Study of the Americas, University of London; 2011http://www2.lse.ac.uk/IDEAS/publications/reports/pdf/SR009/morgan.pdf

Americas economic strength has long underwritten its leading role in world affairs . The buoyant tax revenuesgenerated by economic growth fund its massive military spending,the foundation of its global hardpower. Americas economic success is also fundamental to its soft power and the promotion of its free-market values in theinternational economy. Finally, prosperity generally makes the American public more willing tosupport an expansive foreign policy on the world stage, whereas economic problems tend to engender popular introspection. Ronald Reagan understood that a healthy economy

was a prerequisite for American power when he became president amid conditions of runaway inflation and recession. As he put it in his memoirs, In 1981, no problem the

country faced was more serious than the economic crisis not even the need to modernise our armed forces because without a recovery,we couldnt afford to do the things necessary to make the country strong again or make a serious

effort to reduce the dangers of nuclear war . Nor could America regain confidence in itself and stand tall once again. Nothing was possible unless

we made the economy sound again . Today the United States has to deal with the impact offar worse

economic problems than it did when Reagan became president. These include the fallout from the most severe financial crisis since 1929 (the near-meltdown of thefinancial system in 2008), the worst recession since the Great Depression (the so-called Great Recession of 2007-2009),a fragilerecovery that could well falter into a doubledip recession in 2012, the blowback effects of a European debt crisis, and a future of unsustainable public debt without a correction offiscal course. The current state of the American economy confirmsthe historical trend that downturnsresulting from financial crisis (as in the 1870s, 1890s, and 1930s) are far more serious than other recessions . However, the debt overhang adds a new andvery worrying dimension. Indeed Americas fiscal and economic weaknesses are interlinked because the revival of

economic growth is the necessary first step in dealing with Americas public debt problem. To date,the woeful set of economic and fiscal indicators has not seriously diminished Americas global power,but it has had some effect and threatens to have much greater perhaps catastrophic impact in time.


17/153


17

Econ Turns Environment

Economic decline turns all environmental progress 4 warrantsRichard 8Counter-Point: 4 Reasons Why Recession is BAD for the Environment Michael Graham Richard; Business / Corporate Responsibility; Febru ary 6, 2008 http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/counter-point-4-reasons-why-recession-is-bad-for-the-environment.html

As a counter-point to Lloyd's tongue-in-cheek post about 10 Ways the Recession Can Help the Environment, here are some eco-reasons why we should wish a speedy recovery (wewon't get into non-green reasons here): Firstly, when squeezed, companies will reduce their investments into research &development and green programs. These are usually not short-term profit centers, so that is what'saxed first. Some progress has been made in the past few years, it would be sad to lose ground now. Secondly, average people, when money is tight, will look forless expensive products (duh). Right now, that usually means that greener products won't make it . Maybe someday if we start taxing "bads"instead of "goods" (pollution, carbon, toxins instead of labor, income, capital gains) the least expensive products will also be the greenest, but right now that's not the case. Thirdly, there's less money going intothe stock markets and bank loans are harder to get, which means that many small firms and startupsworking on the breakthrough green technologiesof tomorrowcan have trouble getting funds or can even gobankrupt, especially if their clients or backers decide to make cuts. Fourthly, during economic crises, voters want the government toappear to be doing something about the economy (even if it's government that screwed things up in the first place). They'll accept all kinds ofmeasures and laws, including those that aren't good for the environment. Massive corn subsidies anyone? Don't even

think about progress on global warming...


18/153


18

- - Case Blocks - -


19/153


19

AT Inherency

An inherent barrier to the plan exists

First, Dutzik et al 10 under solvency says that current funding for high speed rail isinadequate to develop a true system.

Second, Dutzik also says that stable funding is critical even if funding occurs everyonce in awhile, it is unable to build an effective high speed rail system, becauseinvestors, contractors, and industries are hesitant to invest in a high speed rail systemif funding starts and stops every year or so.

Third, There is NO federal funding for high speed railPeterman et al. 12The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events Congressional

Research Service - David Randall Peterman, Coordinator Analyst in Transportation Policy John FrittelliSpecialist in Transportation Policy William J. Mallett Specialist in Transportation Policy; June 28, 2012http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42584.pdfThe provision of $8 billion for intercity passenger rail projects in the 2009 American Recovery andReinvestment Act (ARRA; P.L. 111-5) reinvigorated efforts to expand intercity passenger railtransportation in the United States. The Obama Administration subsequently announced that it wouldask Congress to provide $1 billion annually for high speed rail (HSR) projects. This initiative was reflectedin the Presidents budgets for FY2010 through FY2013. Congress approved $2.5 billion for high speed

and intercity passenger rail in FY2010 (P.L. 111-117), but zero in FY2011 (P.L. 112-10) and FY2012

(P.L. 112-55). In addition, the FY2011 appropriations act rescinded $400 million from prior yearunobligated balances of program funding.


20/153


20

AT Inherency (Cities)

Cities dont solve they dont have the resources to build or maintain a national highspeed rail systemBasak 12-7High-speed rail: Comfortable, affordable, & on time Sonali Basak; rising journalist, business and economics reporter and creative writer; December 7, 2012 http://basakwrites.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/high-speed-rail-comfortable-affordable-on-time/

Were talking about a very expensive system, transit systems are very expensive. LaHood said. Communities dont have all ofthe resources they needand so weve talked to the mayor about tryingto leverage money from the city from money from federal government. Snow said if he had to prioritize between money spent o n high-speed transit and local transit, he said assistance would need to go to peopl e who are already dependent on service. Municipal

and city level and inner city transportation by and large are in a state of disrepair , Snow said. Thats an issue

not just of regional importance but of national importance.


21/153


21

AT Construction TurnFirst, this assumes no other infrastructure is builtWestina AND Kagesona 12Centre for Transport Studies, Royal Institute of Technology Department of Transport Science, RoyalInstitute of Technology. Both in Stockholm Sweden[Jonas Westina, Per Kgesona, Can high speed rail offset its embedded emissions?, TransportationResearch Part D: Transport and Environment, Volume 17, Issue 1, January 2012, Pages 17]The method used in this paper does not capture all aspects of its subject. As already mentioned, the indirect effecton emissions of greenhouse gases from being able to use existing rail infrastructure for new types of traffic, after opening a new high speedline, is not covered. This aspect is analyzed in kerman (2011). However, to be able to make up for any sizeable carbon deficit of a new high-speed line that does not attract enough traffic, the indirect climate benefits of making new use of the existing line would have to be significant.

If so, it may be better to focus on how to accommodate those types of railway services rather thaninvesting in a new line dedicated to high speed passenger transport.Another aspect not considered is the possibility that, in the absence of investment in high speed lines,growing demand for rail services would require investment in other kinds of additional capacity whereconstruction would also affect climate change. However, there may also exist other types of response to a growingimbalance between supply and demand that give rise to fewer emissions, e.g. congestion charges and incentives to improve the utilization ofinland waterways and/or short sea shipping routes, and the partial replacement of business travel by telecommunication.

Second, HSR solves construction and maintenance emissions alleviates pressure onroadsKERMAN 11Division of Environmental Strategies Research, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm[Jonas kerman, The role of high-speed rail in mitigating climate change The Swedish case Europabanan from a life cycleperspective, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Volume 16, Issue 3, May 2011, Pages 208217]5.3. Construction, maintenance and operation of roads and airports

The reduced car and truck traffic owing to Europabanan could reduce the need for road investment andmaintenance. However, it is difficult to assess the amount of road building that would be avoidedbybuilding the high-speed line. The rough estimate we make here, based on existing national plans for road building in theaffected corridors, is that road investments of different kinds, corresponding to 100 km of four-lane newmotorways, would be avoided. According to Karlsson and Carlson (2010), building and maintaining thesemotorways would entail emissions of 4800 tons of CO2 per annum over a 40-year period. Thepermanent reduction in carbon storage due to deforestation of a 50-m wide corridor would produceanother 1750 tons per annum. Operation is estimated at 1280 tons per annum. The data used entails someunderestimation of emissions reductions, since no bridges and tunnels have been included. Investingmore in high-speed rail might reduce investments in roads because of public budget limitations, but thishas not fully been accounted for. The data on construction of airports per passenger are from Uppenberg et al. (2003). The resulting annualemissions reductions is comparatively small, 2600 tons, which could be expected due to the limited need for air infrastructure compared with

road and rail. Regarding operation of airports, the data used are for Arlanda Airport (2008), which would be the airport most affected byEuropabanan. The resulting emissions reductions is 9500 tons, a figure that includes internal transport, heating, electricity production and somemaintenance of aircraft. The majority of emissions are caused by electricity production, given the assumption of a carbon intensity of 160g/kWh. 6. Greenhouse gas emissions and sensitivity analysis Greenhouse gas emissions are presented in Fig. 2 as the annual change inemissions in 2025/2030 comparing the HSR and Freight measures and the reference scenario. The annual emissions reductions are 0.55 milliontons with nearly 60% coming from a shift from truck to rail freight, as old tracks are released, and 40% is due to a shift from air and road tohigh-speed rail travel. The reduction can be compared with the 6 million tons from Swedish domestic long-distance transport in 2005. Fig. 2.Annual changes in greenhouse gas emissions in the HSR and Freight measures scenario 2025/2030 compared with the reference scenario2025/2030. Note: The six bars on the left refer to emissions from propulsion and fuel production, while the three on the right refer to vehicles

and infrastructure effects. Railway construction etc. also includes maintenance and operation. Emissions associated with the


22/153


22

construction and maintenance of the new railway are around 4 million tons, of which emissions forconstruction stand for 51%.Widening the perspective to all parts of the transport system reveals a

reduced need for, e.g. cars, roads and airports, which in turn means that emissions are avoided .

These system effects are seldom considered in studies of new railways. Although the extent of these emissionsreductions is uncertain, together they may offset nearly half the emissions increase associated with

construction, maintenance and operation of the new railway, as indicated in the figure. The HSR and Freightmeasures scenario 2025/2030 also gives significant reductions in oil use, which in the base case amount to 2.5 TWh annually.

Third, HSR overtakes its own construction emissions rapidlyETN 11Wider benefits of high-speed rail confirmed in new studies Dec 09, 2011 ETN; Global Travel and Industry News; http://www.eturbonews.com/26841/wider-benefits-high-speed-rail-confirmed-new-studies

The carbon footprint of high-speed rail can be up to 14 times less carbon intensive than car travel

and up to 15 times less than aviation, even when measured over the full life-cycle of planning,

construction, and operation . The figures are outlined in two new research reports detailing the ways in which railways contribute to a more sustainable transportsystem. Using case studies and new data, the reports, carried out by consultancy, Systra for the International Union of Railways (UIC), also demonstrates the benefits of high-speed rail in termsof speed, reliability, comfort, and safety. The main report, High Speed Rail and Sustainability, considers the social, economic, and environmental aspects of high-speed rail performance, and

makes a compelling case for why rail has major advantages in all three areas. The accompanying background report, Carbon Footprint of High Speed RailLines, takes four case studies of high-speed rail lines (two in Europe and two in Asia) and carries out atransparent, robust assessment of carbon emissions for each route, including the planning,construction (track and rolling stocks), and operation phases. For example, emissions on the high-speed Mditerrane line from Valenceto Marseille average 11.0 g CO2 per passenger km, compared to 151.6 g CO2 per passenger km for car and 164.0 g CO2 per passenger km for air. The environmental pay

back time for this route the length of time it takes for the emissions saved by the impact of the newhigh-speed services to overtake the additional emissions produced through the lines construction

was just 5.3 years . New high-speed lines can lead to significant reductions in CO2 emissions by

creating modal shift from air to rail. For example, 48,000 less tons of CO2 are now produced on the Madrid to Seville corridor, following completion of the high-speed line and have a lower direct land-take requirement than roads (2.5ha/km v. 1.3ha/km). HSR, which is only operated on the electrifiednetwork, can directly benefit from the greening of the energy supply network, which over time will

reduce its carbon emissions even further. The economic benefits of high-speed rail are also featured: the reports show how high-speed railsupports and helps economic development in the cities that are linked by these routes. An examplecited is the French city of Lille, where a new inner-city, high-speed station was built to help stimulateregeneration of the city. Over a 13-year period from 1990-2003, the number of tourists in the cityincreased 15-fold.

Fourth, Construction emissions are a one-time cost, our solvency outweighs onspecificity, we solve by reducing congestion which solves 20% of emissions, and bytrading off with inefficient cars


23/153


23

AT Ice Age Turn1. This concedes the internal link between carbon emissions and warming2. This also concedes that case solves carbon emissions, therefore this flow boils

down to impact calc

3. We outweigh on timeframe ice age is tens of thousands of years offChameides 8Global Warming and Predictions of an Impending Ice Age Predicting Future Climate Bill Chameides; Dean, and Nicholas Professor of the Environment Earth & Ocean Sciences PhD, YaleUniversity MS, Yale University BA, SUNY Binghamton; October 30th, 2008 http://blogs.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/futureclimate/

Our current climate regime -a regime weve had for the past ~2 million years - is characterized by long periodsof ice ages and shorter warm periods. The last ice age ended about 12,000 years ago, and since then weve been in a warm period. Some argue that globalwarming is no concern, since the Earth will naturally switch back to an ice age. This is v ery likely to be true: an ice age is almost certainly in our planetsfuture. But its a question of when.Our current concerns about climate change focus on the coming

decades to the next century- the time period relevant to our childrens and grandchildrensexperience. But the ice age/warm period cycle operates on a time scale of tens of thousands of years. Scientists have figured out that ice ages are triggered by subtle changes in the Earths orbit about the Sun. The next

such triggering is not expected to occur any time soon tens of thousands of years from now. Not quitesoon enough to be relevant to our childrens well-being.

4. We outweigh on probability unaminous scientific consensus exists forcatastrophic warming the same cant be said about cooling, means ourinternal is more probable


24/153


24

ATNo Intl Warming Solvency

We spill over globally - ModellingWirth et al 3 (Timothy E, President of the UN Foundation along with C. Boyden Gray a nd John D. Podestaalso of the UN Foundation, The Future of Energy Policies, ForeignAffairs, July/August, p. 132, lexis).

Energy is a common thread weaving through the fabric of critical American interests and global challenges. U.S. strategic energy policy must take into account thethree central concerns outlined above -- economic security, e nvironmental protection, and poverty alleviation -- and set aggressive goals for overcoming them.Leadership from Washington is criticalbecause the [U.S.] United States is so big, so economicallypowerful, and so vulnerable to oil shocks and terrorism. This is a time of opportunity, too -- a major technologicalrevolution is beginning in energy, with great potential markets. And finally, the reality is that where the [U.S.] United States goes, otherswill likely follow. America's example for good or for ill sets the tempo and the direction of action far beyond its borders and far into the future.


25/153


25

AT Adaption Solves Warming

Try-or-dieWarming is an existential risk, we wont adaptMazo 10PhD in Paleoclimatology from UCLA, Jeffrey Mazo, Managing Editor, Survival and Research Fellow for Environmental Security and Science Policy at the International Institute for StrategicStudies in London, 3-2010, Climate Conflict: How global warming threatens security and what to do about it, pg. 122

The best estimates for global warming to the end of the century range from 2.5-4.~C above pre-industrial levels, depending on the scenario. Even in the best-casescenario, the low end of the likely range is 1.6C, and in the worst 'business as usual' projections, which actual emissions have been matching, therange of likelywarmingrunsfrom 3.1--7.1C. Even keeping emissions at constant 2000 levels (which have already been exceeded), global temperature would still be expect ed to reach 1.2C(O'9""1.5C)above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century." Without early and severe reductions in emissions, the effects of climatechange in the second half of the twenty-first century are likely to be catastrophic for the stability and security of countries in the developing world - not tomention the associated human tragedy. Climate change could even undermine the strength and stability of emerging and a dvanced economies, beyond the knock-on effects on security ofwidespread state failure and collapse in developing countries.' And although they have been condemned as melodramatic and alarmist, many informed observers believe that

unmitigated climate change beyond the end of the century could pose an existential threat to civilisation." What is certain isthat there is no precedent in human experience for such rapid change or such climatic conditions, andeven in the best case adaptation to these extremes would mean profound social, cultural and politicalchanges.


26/153


26

AT Dirty GridEven assuming the dirtiest grids HSR produces less emissions than carsUCS 12State of Charge: Electric Vehicles Global Warming Emissions and Fuel-Cost Savings Across the United States Union of Concerned Scientists June 2012http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/smart-transportation-solutions/advanced-vehicle-technologies/electric-cars/emissions-and-charging-costs-electric-cars.html

Electric vehicles (EVs) burn no gasoline and have no tailpipe emissions, but producing the electricity used tocharge them does generate global warming emissions. The amount of these emissions, however,varies significantly based on the mix of energy sources used to power a region's electricity grid. Forexample, coal-fired power plants produce nearly twice the global warming emissions of natural gas-fired power plants, while renewable sources like wind and solar power produce virtually noemissions at all. The UCS report, State of Charge: Electric Vehicles' Global Warming Emissions and Fuel-Cost Savings Across the United States, compares the global warming emissions from

EVs with those from gasoline-powered vehicles and finds that: Nationwide, EVs charged from the electricity grid produce lowerglobal warming emissions than the average compact gasoline-powered vehicle (with a fuel economy of 27 miles per

gallon) even when the electricity is produced primarily from coal in regions with the dirtiest

electricity grids . In regions with the cleanest electricity grids, EVs produce lower global warming

emissions than even the most fuel-efficient hybrids. EVs charged entirely from renewable sourceslike wind and solar power produce virtually no global warming emissions. The report evaluates regional electricity gridsacross the United States based on the global warming emissions produced from electricity generation, and then compares the emissions generated by charging an EV with those produced by

gasoline-powered vehicles. The report finds that: Nearly half of Americans (45%) live in the best regions where EVs producelower global warming emissions than even the most fuel-efficient gasoline hybrids on the market today (greater than50 mpg). Another third (38%) live in better areas where EVs produce emissions comparable to the bestgasoline hybrid vehicles (41 50 mpg). A minority (17%) reside in good regions where emissions from EVs arecomparable to the most fuel-efficient non-hybrid gasoline vehicles (31 40 mpg).


27/153


27

AT Cold worse than HeatHeat kills three times as many people as coldGardner 12Global Warming Will Cause Rise in Death Rates Amanda Gardner; HealthDay Reporter; June 28, 2012

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthday/story?id=4507735&page=1&singlePage=true#.UKBgO8XA-SoTHURSDAY, June 28 (HealthDay News) -- Sizzling temperatures brought on by global warming will kill

more people in the summer months, a new study suggests, and that toll won't be offset by fewer

deaths during milder winters. "The results suggest that mortality [from hot temperatures] won't becompensated by a reduction in mortality in winter," said study author Mercedes Medina-Ramon, aresearch fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health's department of environmental health. Accordingto the study, global warming is expected to increase the average temperature of Earth between 1.7 and4.9 degrees Celsius by the year 2100. It is also expected to result in more scorching summer days and

fewer freezing winter ones. It's no secret that extreme temperatures can kill -- 35,000 people died in theEuropean heat wave of 2003, for example. But scientists don't yet know what the effect of globalwarming will be on death rates. "It seems that global warming will increase deaths due to extreme hottemperatures. That we already know," Medina-Ramon said. "What we didn't know was if that would becompensated by a reduction in mortality during the winter because it's less cold." Medina-Ramon andstudy co-author Joel Schwartz, also of Harvard, looked at daily death and weather data for more than6.5 million deaths occurring from 1989 to 2000 in 50 U.S. cities . During two-day cold snaps, deathswent up 1.59 percent. Many of the deaths were due to heart attacks and cardiac arrest. But duringscorchers, death rates went up by much more: 5.74 percent. The effect of extreme cold was similarbetween cities, suggesting that the use of central heating may have prevented some deaths. But theeffects of heat were wildly different, with the largest effects seen in cities with milder summers, lessair conditioning and denser populations. The findings were published in the June 28 online issue of

Occupational and Environmental Medicine. "In the U.S., most people have heating in their homes so achange in cold temperature won't make as much of a difference," said Medina-Ramon. "It won't makeas much of a difference as hot temperatures because there are more people who don't have an airconditioner at home."

Err aff potential deaths outweighWunderground, no dateHeat Mortality Wunderground http://www.wunderground.com/climate/heatmortality.aspI don't trust any of these numbers, since heat and cold mortality statistics are highly uncertain andeasy to cherry pick to show a desired result. It is rather unproductive to argue about how manypeople die due to heat and cold in the current climate or in a future climate. Excess heat deaths due to

climate change should not get as much attention as the potential for death due to reduction in cropyields due to increased heat and drought, regional collapses of the oceanic food chain from the steadyacidification of the oceans, and the wars these conditions might trigger.


28/153


28

ATCars dont contribute much to warmingCars are comparatively the biggest contributor to warmingVoiland 10Road transportation emerges as key driver of warming: NASA analysis Adam Voiland; NASA Earth Observatory, graduated from Br own University with a degree in geology-biology, working toward a masters degree in science writing at Johns Hopkins University; Feb 18 2010http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2010-02-26/road-transportation-emerges-key-driver-warming-nasa-analysis NCHO

For decades, climatologistshave studied the gases and particles that have potential to alter Earth's climate. They have discovered and described certain airbornechemicals that can trap incoming sunlight and warm the climate, while others cool the planet byblocking the Sun's rays. Now a new study led by Nadine Unger ofNASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York Cityoffers a more intuitive way to understand what's changing the Earth's climate. Rather than analyzing impacts by chemical species, scientists have analyzed the climate impacts by differenteconomic sectors.Each part of the economy, such as ground transportation or agriculture, emits aunique portfolio of gases and aerosols that affect the climate in different ways and on different

timescales.Motor vehicles give off only minimal amounts of sulfates and nitrates, both pollutants

that cool climate, though they produce significant amounts of pollutants that warm climate such as

carbon dioxide, black carbon, and ozone. Credit: NASA's Langley Research Center Larger image "

We wanted to provide the informationin a way that would be more helpful for policy makers," Unger said. "This approach will make it easier toidentify sectors for which emission reductions will be most beneficial for climate and those which mayproduce unintended consequences." In a paper published online on Feb. 3 by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Unger and colleagues described how they used a climate model to estimate the impact of13 sectors of the economy from 2000 to 2100. They based their calculations on real-world inventories of emissions collected by scientists around the world, and they assumed that those emissions would stay relatively constant in the future. Snapshots of the Future In their analysis,

motor vehicles emerged as the greatest contributor to atmospheric warming now and in the near

term. Cars, buses, and trucks release pollutants and greenhouse gases that promote warming, whileemitting few aerosols that counteract it.The on-road transportation sector releases significantamounts of carbon dioxide, black carbon, and ozoneall substances that cause warming. In contrast, the industrial sectorreleases many of the same gases, but it also tends to emit sulfates and other aerosols that cause cooling by reflecting light and altering clouds. Credit: N ASA GISS/Unger Larger image The researchers found that the burning of household biofuels -- primarily wood and animal dungfor home heating and cooking -- contribute the second most warming. And raising livestock, particularly methane-producing cattle, contribute the third most. On the other end of the spectrum, the industrial sector releases such a high proportion of sulfates and other cooling aerosols

that it actually contributes a significant amount of cooling to the system. And biomass burning -- which occurs mainly as a result of tropical forest fires, deforestation, savannah and shrub fires -- emits large amounts of organic carbon particles that block solar radiation. Thenew analysis offers policy makers and the public a far more detailed and comprehensive

understanding of how to mitigate climate change most effectively, Unger and colleagues assert. "

Targeting on-roadtransportation is a win-win-win," she said. "It's good for the climate in the short term and long term,and it's good for our health."
http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2010-02-26/road-transportation-emerges-key-driver-warming-nasa-analysishttp://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2010-02-26/road-transportation-emerges-key-driver-warming-nasa-analysis


29/153


29

AT 31000 scientists disagree with warmingThe list of 30,000 scientists is false, inflated, and it outweighed by scientific consensusAngliss 10Scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project Brian Angliss; BSEE from Pennsylvania State University and MSEE from the University of Colorado, works as an electrical engineer at a Denver-area aerospace firm and has worked in the storage and telecommunicationsequipment industries in the past, science editor and climate/energy writer, and member of the Society of Environmental Journalists; 11 March 2010 http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=158In early 2008, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) published their Petition Project, a list of names from people who all claimed to be scientists and who rejected the science behind the theory of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (AGW). This was an attemptto by the OISM to claim that there were far more scientists opposing AGW theory than there are supporting it. This so- called petition took on special importance coming after the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes Fourth Assessment Report, and specifically the

Working Group 1 (WG1) report on the science and attribution of climate change to human civilization. The WG1 report was authored and reviewed by approximately 2000 scientists with varying expertise in climate and related fields, and so having a list of over30,000 scientiststhat rejected the WG1s conclusions was a powerful meme that AGW skeptics and deniers could use to cast

doubt on theIPCCs conclusions and, indirectly, on the entire theory of climate disruption. And in fact, this meme has become widespread in both legacy and new media today. It is

also false . According to the Petition Project qualifications page, Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project l ist if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields . The fieldsthat are considered appropriate by the OISM are as follows: Atmosphere, Earth, and Environment fields: atmospheric science, climatology, meteorology, astronomy, astrophysics, earth science, geochemistry, geology, geophysics, geoscience, hydrology, environmental engineering,environmental science, forestry, oceanography Computers and Math: computer science, mathematics, statistics Physics and Aerospace: physics, nuclear engineering, mechanical engineering, aerospace engineering Chemistry: chemistry, chemical engineering Biochemistry, Biology,and Agriculture: biochemistry, biophysics, biology, ecology, entomology, zoology, animal science, agricultural science, agricultural engineering, plant science, food science Medicine: medical science, medicine General Engineering and General Science: engineering, electrical engineering,

metallurgy, general science The OISMs qualifications for being a scientist are expansive, and as such there are a number of questions that have to be answered before we

can take this list seriously. What expertise does a nuclear engineer or amedical doctor or a food scientist or mechanicalengineer have that makes them qualified to have an informed opinion on the cause(s) of recent climate disruption?How many of these names are working climate scientists instead ofscience or math teachers or stay-at-home-moms with engineering degrees? How many of these people has actually published a peer-reviewedpaper on climate? How many people took a look at the card that served as a signature (click on the image to see a larger version) and realized that they could lieabout having a science degree and their deception would never be discovered?At this point its literallyimpossible to know because the names and degrees on the list cannot be verified by anyone outsidethe OISM. We can only take the OISMs word that theyre all real names, that all the degrees are

correct, and so on. This does not stand up to the most basic tests of scientific credibility . Unfortunately, the OISMs list hashad its credibility fabricated for it by individuals and groups as diverse as Steve Milloy of Fox News (see this link for a S &R investigation into the background and tactics of Steve Milloy), L. Brent Bozell of conservative news site Newsbusters and founder of the conservative MediaResearch Center, Benita M. Dodd of the Georgia Public Policy Foundation, the libertarian/conservative site American Thinker (a site that has regularly failed to fact-check their AGW posts), conservative commentator Deroy Murdock (who works on Project 21 with the wife of one of SteveMilloys long-time associates), RightSideNews, Dakota Voice, Dennis T. Avery of the Hudson Institute, Lawrence Solomon of the Financial Post, Michelle Malkin, and the Competitiv e Enterprise Institute, to name just a few of the better known. As a result, the OISMs petition has beenelevated to a level of credibility that is arguably undeserved. While its not possible to test the validity of OISM list di rectly, it is possible to test the conclusions that have been drawn from the OISM list. Specifically, we can test what percentage the 30,000 scientists listed on the OISMpetition represent when compared to the total number of scientists in the U.S. And we can then compare that to the percentage represented by the 2000 IPCC AR4 WG1-associated scientists as compared to the estimate number of U.S. climate-related scientists.

According to the OISM website, anyone with a Bachelors, Masters, or Doctorate of Philosophy in afield related to physical sciences is qualified as a scientist . In addition, the OISM sent the petition cards pictured above only to individuals within the U.S. Based on this information, wecan us the OISMs own guidelines to determine how many scientists there a re in the U.S. and what percentage of those scientists are represented by the OISM petition. The U.S. Department of Education tracks the number of graduates from institutions of higher education every year,and has done so since either the 1950-51 or 1970-71 school years, depending on what specifically the Dept. of Ed. was interested in. This data was last updated in the Digest of Education Statistics: 2008. Were specifically interested in the number of degrees that have been awarded in thevarious scientific disciplines as defined by the OISM in the list above. This information is available in the following tables within the 2008 Digest: 296, 298, 302, 304, 310, 311, and 312. Table 1 below show how many graduates there were in the various categories defined by the Dept. of

Ed. since the 1970-71 school year (click on the image for a larger version). The numbers have been corrected to account for the fact that PhDs will usually have MS degrees as well, and that both are preceded by BS degrees. As you can see, Table 1 shows that therewere over 10.6 million science graduates as defined by the OISM since the 1970-71 school year. This is

a conservative estimate as illustrated by the 242,000 graduates in biological and biomedical sciences from 1950-51 through 1969-70 alone, never mind the 166,000 engineering graduates, and so on. Many of these

individuals are still alive today and would be considered scientists according to the OISM definitionthereof. The OISM website lists how many signatures they have for scientists in each of their categories. Given the number of graduates and the number of signatures claimed by the OISM, we can calculate the percentage of OISM-defined scientists who signed as referenced to the total.

These results are shown in Table 2 below. In other words, the OISM signatories represent a small fraction (~0.3%) of all science graduates,

even when we use the OISMs own definition of a scientist .However, as mentioned above, its entirely reasonable to ask whether a veterinarian or forestry manager or electrical engineer should qualify as a scientist. If we remove all the engineers, medical professionals, computer scientists, and

mathematicians, then the 31,478 scientists turn into 13,245 actual scientists , as opposed to scientists accordi ng to the OISMs expansive

definition. Of course, not all of them are working in science, but since some medical professionals and statisticians do work in science, its still a reasonablequick estimate. However, its not reasonable to expect that all ofthose actual scientists are working in climate sciences. Certainly the 39 climatologists, but after that, it gets much murkie r. Most geologists dont work as climate scientists, although somecertainly do. Most meteorologists do weather forecasting, but understanding the weather is radically different than understanding climate. So we cant be sure beyond the 39 climatologists,

although we can reasonably assume that the number is far less than the 13,245 actual scientists

claimed by the OISM.13,245 scientists is only 0.1% of the scientists graduated in the U.S. since the

1970-71 school year. We can, however, compare the number of atmospheric scientists, climagologists, ocean scientists, and meteorologists who signed this petition to the number of members of the various professional organizations. For example,the American Geophysical Union (AGU) has over 55,000 members, of which over 7,200 claim that atmospheric sciences is their primary field. The OISM claims 152 atmospheric scientists. Compared to the atmospheric scientist membership in the AGU, the OISM signatories are only 2.1%,and this estimate is high given the fact that the AGU does not claim all atmospheric scientists as members. The AGU hydrology group has over 6,000 members who call hydrology their primary field. The OISM list has 22 names that claim to be hydrologists, or 0.4%. The AGU oceansciences group claims approximately 6,800 members. The OISM has 83 names, or 1.2%. And again, given that AGU membership is not required to be a practicing ocean scientists, this number is inflated. The American Meteorological Society claims over 14,000 members and the OISM

claims 341 meteorologists as petition signatories. Thats only 2.4%. Its clear that the OISM names dont represent a significant number of


30/153


30

scientists when compared to either the total number of science graduates in the U.S. or to the numberof practicing scientists who work in likely relevant fields . But thats not all. Over recent years, various organizations have set out to estimate just how widespread the suppos ed

scientific consensus on AGW actually is. Two recent efforts were conducted by the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University and by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The STATS survey found that 84% of climate

scientists surveyed personally believe human-induced warming is occurring and that *o+nly 5%believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming.The STATS survey involved a random sampling of 489 self-identified members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union and it has a theoretical sampling error of +/- 4%. The Pew survey was taken in early 2009 and asked over 2000 members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science(AAAS) their opinion on various scientific issues, including climate disruption. 84% of AAAS respondents felt that warming is due to human activity compared to only 10% who felt that warming is due to natural causes. The AAAS has over 10 million members, and the results of the

survey are statistically valid for the entire population with a theoretical sampling error of +/- 2.5%. 84% of 10 million scientist members of the AAAS is 8.4 million

scientists who agree that climate disruption is human-caused. 84% of the climate scientists (conservatively just the members of the atmospheric science group of the AGU) is,

conservatively, 6,000 scientists who have direct and expert knowledge of climate disruption. The 13,245 scientists and 152 possible climate scientists who signed

the OISM petition represent a small minority of the totals. The IPCC AR4 WG1 report was written and reviewed by approximately 2000 scientists. If we assume that the 20,000 AGUmembers who claim to be atmospheric scientists, ocean scientists, or hydrologists represent the pool of potential experts in climate science in the U.S., then approximately 10% of all climate scientists were directly involved in creating the over 1000 page report. That compares to less

than 1% of all OISM scientists who mailed a pre -printed postcard. A more recent survey of earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity

is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?". 97.5% of climatologists

who were actively publishing papers on climate change responded yes.(Doran 2009). What is most interesting about this study was that as thelevel of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement thathumans are significantly changing global temperatures . Figure 1: Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean globaltemperatures?" (Doran 2009) General public data come from a 2 008 Gallup poll. Ultimately, The OISM petition will continue to rear its ugly head until its fabricated credibility has bee n thoroughly demolished. Social conservatives and libertarians, each of which has their own ideologicalreasons to push the OISM petition, have been effective at keeping the 30,000 scientists reject warming chicken-littleism of IPCC meme circulating throughout conservative media outlets, even as climate disruption -focused media have worked at limiting the damage from the OISM

petition. But given the fact thatthe science supporting a dominantly anthropogenic cause for climate disruption is

overwhelming , its only a matter of time before the OISM petition wilts in the heat.


31/153


31

AT Delays1. Fiat solves the word should under the resolution implies desirability of an

action, not implementation. We should debate as if high speed rail was passedand construction began immediately.

2. Eminent Domain only affects parts of the project keystone proves, the entirepipeline except one small section has been completed

3. Funding occurs immediately that stimulates the economy4. The act of voting aff boosts the economy associated manufacturers will begin

building prerequisite materialsAASHTO 9Companies Commit to Expanding U.S. Manufacturing Operations American Association of State

Highway and Transportation Officials December 11, 2009http://www.aashtojournal.org/Pages/121109hsr.aspxMore than 30 rail manufacturers and suppliers, both domestic and foreign, have committed toestablish or expand their base of operations in the United States if they are selected by states to buildhigh-speed rail lines, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced last Friday at a conferenceon high-speed rail manufacturing in Washington. "Our goal is to develop a national high-speed railnetwork, create good jobs here in America, and help reinvigorate our manufacturing base," LaHood said."We know these are tough economic times for many folks and we believe that U.S. rail manufacturersand suppliers will benefit greatly from this new program. We also look forward to establishing jointventures with foreign firms who can provide expertise and establish or expand their operations here inthe U.S." The conference drew more than 100 business leaders, union representatives, industry groups,and experts -- including Wisconsin Transportation Secretary Frank Busalacchi and AASHTO Executive

Director John Horsley -- to discuss President Barack Obama's vision for the development of high-speedand intercity passenger rail in America. The Federal Railroad Administration has received $57 billion inapplications for passenger rail projects from the states; $8 billion is available from the AmericanRecovery and Reinvestment Act. FRA expects to announce grant awards later this winter. "We hope thatmoney gets spent right here in the U.S. where it can create jobs and stimulate economic growth,"LaHood wrote in a blog posting. "We want to see that $8 billion do its job-creation work in America.We want to create good jobs right here and reinvigorate U.S. manufacturing." Several participantsexpressed concern that the funding might dry up in the future and thus manufacturers don't have any

long-term certainly right now regarding America's commitment to high-speed rail. William Millar,

American Public Transportation Association president, said Congress needs to enact a long-term high-

speed rail program with guaranteed funding levels to give manufacturers a predictable and steadylong-term base of demand.


32/153


32

AT Econ ImprovingGlobal economic collapse coming 80% probabilityIMF 12World Economic outlook International Monetary Fund October 2012

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2012/02/pdf/text.pdfThe WEOs standard fan chart suggests that uncertainty about the outlook has increased markedly(Figure 1.11, panel 1). 1 The WEO growth forecast is now 3.3 and 3.6 percent for 2012 and 2013,respectively, which is somewhat lower than in April 2012. The probability of global growth falling

below 2 percent in 2013which would be consistent with recession in advanced economies and a

serious slowdown in emerging market and developing economieshas risen to about 17 percent, up

from about 4 percent in April 2012 and 10 percent (for the one-year-ahead forecast) during the

very uncertain setting of the September 2011 WEO. The IMF staffs Global Projection Model (GPM)

uses an entirely different methodology to gauge risk but confirms that risks for recession in advanced economies (entailing a serious slowdown in emerging market and developing economies) are

alarmingly high (Figure 1.12, panel 1). For 2013, the GPM estimates suggest that recession

probabilities are about 15 percent in the United States, above 25 percent in Japan, and above 80

percent in the euro area.


33/153


33

AT Property ValuesPlan skyrockets property valuesFogarty et al. 8Capturing the Value of Transit Center for Transit-Oriented Development - Nadine Fogarty; StrategicEconomics; Nancy Eaton; Strategic Economics; Dena Belzer; Strategic Economics; Gloria Ohland;Reconnecting America; November 2008http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/ctodvalcapture110508v2.pdfThere is a growing awareness in the United States that public transit offers numerous economic,social, and environmental benefits, and the perceived value of these benefits is, to a certain extent,reflected in increased property values near transit stations. Americans are increasingly prioritizing theadvantages provided by neighborhoods near transit, including economic savings to households,reduced carbon emissions, healthier lifestyles, fewer traffic accidents, and reduced suburban sprawl.At the same time, demographic and cultural changes are resulting in a growing interest in cities and

urban lifestyles, which means that there is increased demand for the kind of neighborhoods that aremost likely to be served by transit. These trends are only reinforced by recent spikes in oil and gasprices. Numerous studies have measured and documented a value premium for properties neartransit, and many agencies and individuals are interested in tapping into this value.


34/153


34

AT Barnet: Econ /=/ War

Reject their Barnet evidence -1. Qualifications Barnet is the director of a company, Royal is the head ofcooperative threat reduction at the department of defenseour authorscredentials are specific to the military

2. Barnet has no warrants he just makes a bunch of claims3. Barnet is actually talking about free trade, its in the context of globalization


35/153


35

AT Inflation

Inflation spurs growthsolves risk aversion and stimulates the economy.Mirhaydari 10 Anthony Mirhaydari, investment columnist at MSN Money, former senior research analyst at Markman Capital Insightan investment advisory and moneymanagement firm, 2010 (No Inflation Means No Recovery, MSN Money, September 8th, Avai lable Online at http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/mirhaydari-no-inflation-means-no-recovery.aspx?page=all, Accessed 09-08-2011)

The problem is extreme risk aversion . And it's being enabled by low inflation . The hordes are hoarding Instead

of using cheap financing to invest and hire workers or even raise dividends or repurchase shares,corporations are

hoarding cash . The ratio of liquid assets to total assets has jumped from 2.9% in 1980 to nearly 7%, a level not seen since 1960. As a result, the

manufacturing capacity of the country is beginning to rust away as managers forgo even basic maintenance expenditures to stash money in thebank, a subject explored at length in a recent column. The banks aren't doing much either. Although we've seen some positive signs, with lending standards finally beginning to ease, there

are now fewer loans outstanding than there were in September 2008. Instead of extending credit to businesses and consumers, the

financial sector is dumping its cash into U.S. Treasurys and parking money in the Federal Reserve's vaults. The latter strategy

earns a paltry 0.25%, yet the a mount of money sitting idle at the Fed has jumped from just $810 million in the months before the recession to more than $1 trillion now. These arereservoirs of cash waiting to be tapped . Similarly, U.S. consumers aren't using cheap credit to buy

discounted luxury homes or go on spending sprees. That's despite mortgage rates that have plunged to just 4.3% while home affordability hasreturned to levels not seen since before the bubble. Credit card debts are being paid down. Indeed, the personal savings rate has jumped from a low of 0.8% in 2005 to 5.9% now. Obviously,part of the problem is that many consumers, banks and businesses are still paying for past sins. Debts are being repaid and balance sheets rebuilt. And millions of people are still withoutwork. But the process is nearing its end. Banks are about 85% of the way through recognizing their housing-bubble losses, according to estimates by Credit Suisse and the Inter

2ac blocks

Documents